Warrior General Games

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by Dpride59

Or lets spend 25 days working out the areas that are weak and need improving so we don't have to have threads about why GLB rushed something for an entire season...

either way it's a change so we'll get some rage.

But I'll still drink your milk shake! I'll drink it up!!!

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
The World league is still around in this system!

Wasn't included in the list, but I would imagine the Elite Pro league would feed into it.

So would all cap 64 teams get promoted into regular Pro and then have to get promoted sideways 2x and then up once in order to get to the WL? That just adds 2 more steps to get to the WL. Or would the ones with good records in cap 64 go straight to elite Pro like how it works in the minors now, thus, jumping ahead of the good teams in normal Pro who would promote to competitive Pro?

Things like this are why once you leave the caps, having a mini-pyramid which puts everybody on equal footing in order to go to the WL might be better. Also, if you only have 2 leagues feeding into the WL, you're either going to significantly limit the turnover in the WL or if turnover stays the same, start promoting the top 4 from each conference of both the elite leagues into the WL to replace the non-playoff teams. Which I guess is fine if that's what you want, it's just different

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Any chance you want to elaborate as to why teams need to cost more to own, and why people shouldn't be unhappy about it?

It costs more to boost a WR for a season than to own a team.

I don't see this changing much.

We don't need multi's made to buy teams and we don't need non-committed owners buying teams and getting in over their heads just because the cost has been so low to own a team.

Anyway, we have discussed nudging it up a little bit. People who don't buy Flex Points will still be able to save up and get a team if they want to.

Don't change Casual Pro please. One Pro league to rule them all as Gandalf of GLB would say!

The pyramid in Casuals is working there. We have elite/competitive caps there and are filtering up and coming contenders just nicely.

Thanks.

Originally posted by The Avenger
Don't change Casual Pro please. One Pro league to rule them all as Gandalf of GLB would say!

The pyramid in Casuals is working there. We have elite/competitive caps there and are filtering up and coming contenders just nicely.

Thanks.

It's on like donkey kong: http://goallineblitz.com/game/compare_teams.pl?team1=8683&team2=8032

Not sure that we would be changing the Casual Leagues into this system.

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
It's on like donkey kong: http://goallineblitz.com/game/compare_teams.pl?team1=8683&team2=8032

Not sure that we would be changing the Casual Leagues into this system.

LOL! I'll have the D.DOTS fine tuned for that tilt!

Originally posted by F8n4tune
Seems pretty nice , but also you guys should probably not allow buy ins to these leagues only promotable teams ? Am I on the right track ? Seems like that would keep everything fluid.

Yeah, buy-ins could potentially lead to problems with rivalries.

Owner A is good, and puts up a good game against Team B
Owner B buys Team A, and is now a joke against B, but gets assigned to their league because of past rivalries.

You know, increasing the importance of energy and morale in the sim probably hasn't helped competitiveness. The best teams stack up with most of the best players so that they can keep the dots fresh. Fewer good dots per team leads to some competition issues.

Originally posted by risico
FIX MORALE!

noted.

if you have input on league structure feel free to add it in here.

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN

Any chance you want to elaborate as to why teams need to cost more to own, and why people shouldn't be unhappy about it?

It costs more to boost a WR for a season than to own a team.

I don't see this changing much.

We don't need multi's made to buy teams and we don't need non-committed owners buying teams and getting in over their heads just because the cost has been so low to own a team.

Anyway, we have discussed nudging it up a little bit. People who don't buy Flex Points will still be able to save up and get a team if they want to.

Taking into account retirement flex, it costs 270 flex to boost a WR, and 400 flex to own a team.

Team turnover is bad for the game. Making it cost more to keep a team = more team turnover.

Again, but simply charging say 1400 flex for 3 seasons to buy a team, you are curbing newbs from buying teams before being ready.

By charging more to extend teams, you are charging owners more money in order for them to get nothing more in return. Making WR's cost 250 flex rather than 300 to go along with the boost to 500-600 flex/season/seasonwould be fine, but as it stand you are talking about charging the average player more cash (flex) in exchange for nothing...


Also worth noting, if only committed/ready owners had teams, you would not have enough human teams to support the player population. The more you rise cost, indeed the more non-ready owners don't own, but that comes at a cost.

Tbh, a change to say 800-1,000 flex/season without any flex reductions would cause a LOT of good committed owners to consider selling their teams out of principle. Players are happy when they are on active teams with good owners, and a LOT of stuff owners go through is a pain. Raising the cost = shoddy idea, imho.

or raise the price to buy a team and lower the price to renew

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
noted.

if you have input on league structure feel free to add it in here.

Do you assume that the league structure is broken or do you want to change it just for the sake of changing it? I guess what I'm trying to get at, is that it's hard to say what's at fault for the lack of competitiveness in the game. A few seasons ago the devs thought that going to a cloud system would fix this issue, but I think there are things beyond the scope of league structure that are ruining competition. Fix those things first, then think about restructuring the leagues.

If we're going to restructure the leagues though, I'd be in favor of either 1) a ladder system or 2) contract 2 regions (consolidate the Europes into one Europe region and OPL/SEAPL into an Asia region) and go with what you had before the cloud. I liked the rivalries that were developed from playing the same teams every season.

Originally posted by maz621
or raise the price to buy a team and lower the price to renew

+1

Right now teams are a big flex sink hole. Most owners are glad to pay and owning a team is really one of the biggest selling points in the game. If you do increase the cost of ownership you need to hold some new owners hands imo. That would go a long way towards keeping new owners.

Think about it. You raise the price. A new agent wants to get his feet wet. You then drown him and laugh at him so he spends his money elsewhere. If you give him some swimming instructions maybe he will open up his wallet more. You see this trend in the e-trade market as more sites are working to educate their members to keep them coming back for more.

Doesn't address the problem of teams intentionally losing to drop leagues or move into non elite leagues. Until you do there is always going to be a team that wins a season, moves into a league they can't handle, then intentionally loses to move into a less competitive league just to get that little gold trophy. Need an incentive to play the toughest competition possible.


Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Vortus Idea:
---

The remainder of the lower leagues stay the same. Using the same system as in the current lower league elite system. Using the plain Cap leagues to shuttle bad teams, gutted teams, each of the main leagues at each cap could be full each season. Simple, effective, and rivalries would be maintained as teams worked up through the ladder together. And it gets rid of teams way outleveling others as there is a cap level for each.


Teams that don't compete are moved down to lower tiers either sideways from the higher Elite/Competition caps to the Regular caps or down level caps entirely if the roster does not meet the minimum standards set for each league .

Teams that are good move up either to higher leveled leagues, or sideways toward the Elite leagues.

Extending the caps all the way up will force teams to play where they need to be. No more 70's in AA.


Teams that gut or rebuild have options on how far they want to drop down based on the levels of the players they want. Drop all the way down, or drop to a 42 cap, or a 56 cap.
---

+We make CPU players better

+We raise the cost to own a team a little.



So far this is the leading candidate. Who wants to pick it apart?

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by F8n4tune

I like this and am of the sense that any idea that doesn't include smaller rosters will help nothing. Player agents are what drive/fund this game , they need to be kept active. Stats are what works , period. Also i'd like to add that teams should..........

1) Cost more to own
2) Not be allowed to sell back during season with a flex refund of any type. Say day -8 until that season ends you get zip zero nada.

We are likely going to do both of the above.

Teams should be able to go CPU during the season, but they shouldn't get flex back for it.

That would be great on so many levels of fix it.

Those two alone makes the choice tougher for someone who just wants to buy a team to be buying one. Granted some folks will get hurt who just aren't able anymore for whatever personal reason(s) but that will just have to be chalked up to collateral damage. Having people own longer makes for better league structure because the longer you own the more you learn imo.